On Thursday,
delegates met in parallel working groups to continue negotiating Vice-Chair’s
draft texts on forest-related scientific knowledge (FRSK), traditional
forest-related knowledge (TRFK), monitoring, assessment and reporting (MAR) and
criteria and indicators (C&I), and the process for facilitating the review of
the effectiveness of the international arrangement on forests (REIAF). At
various times in the day, delegates also convened informal-informal
consultations on the social and cultural aspects of forests (SCAF), the finance
and transfer of environmentally sound technologies (FINTEST), and enhanced
cooperation. As of 9:00 pm, delegates had completed negotiations on SCAF and
were continuing informal consultations on FRSK, FINTEST, MAR, REIAF and enhanced
cooperation.

WORKING GROUP I

FOREST-RELATED
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE: Vice-Chair Xolisa Mabhongo (South Africa) reopened
discussions on a revised Vice-Chair’s draft text on FRSK. On lessons learned,
the G-77/CHINA noted that some were formulated in terms of future actions,
instead of past experiences. Delegates agreed to open the respective paragraphs
with “in spite of lessons learned, experience has shown that” and list proposed
steps. Delegates agreed to keep the lesson on stakeholder involvement. Noting
the decline of public funding for research in both developed and developing
countries, delegates agreed to state that this limited the potential
contribution of forest research to the advancement of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests/Intergovernmental Forum on Forests (IPF/IFF) proposals for
action.

On linkages
between science and policy, the G-77/CHINA asked to detail the use of scientific
knowledge in policy development, whereas the US focused on the involvement of
scientists in forest policy processes. Delegates agreed to drop the detailed
references.

The G-77/CHINA
cautioned against weakening existing commitments for support to capacity
building, and preferred to refer to research cooperation, rather than “regional”
research cooperation. On partnerships and stakeholder participation in
prioritization and development of research programmes, the G-77/CHINA suggested
referring to all “relevant stakeholders” or deleting the paragraph. On
determination of forest research, the G-77/CHINA proposed inviting countries to
consider the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including indigenous and
local communities, in forest-related research, and calling for making available
forest-related research results to developing countries free of cost.

The G-77/CHINA
requested retaining the paragraph on capacity building, noting that IPF/IFF
proposals for action do not call for a necessary level of support.

On the involvement
of the private sector, the G-77/CHINA asked to not duplicate discussions under
SCAF and adopt similar text. Delegates agreed to adapt it to FRSK. Delegates
also agreed to delete the paragraph on capacity building and continue
consultations on the promotion of forest-related scientific research. On
linkages between forestry education and research, the G-77/CHINA asked not to
single out developing countries, and instead to refer to “countries, within
their capacities.” The US agreed to delete a reference to broader development
goals.

TRADITIONAL
FOREST-RELATED KNOWLEDGE: In the afternoon, Vice-Chair Mabhongo reopened
discussions on the revised Vice-Chair’s draft text on TFRK. The G-77/CHINA
explained its concerns over facilitation of access, use of mainstream
intellectual property instruments and prejudging the work of other fora. She
proposed having a single preambular paragraph highlighting the importance of
TFRK to SFM and one operative paragraph on protecting and safeguarding TFRK. A
number of delegations needed time to consult, but, following informal
consultations, expressed their willingness to condense the text.

The US and NORWAY
said its concerns included: access to TFRK; recognition that TFRK adds to SFM
and poverty reduction; and reference to work in other fora. NEW ZEALAND added
effective participation of indigenous and local communities.

The G-77 proposed
a single operative paragraph “urging countries to continue to safeguard and
protect TFRK, including through the development of national and international
legislation, ensuring that these activities do not adversely affect holders of
TFRK through misappropriation or use in ways not intended when holders gave the
information,” but expressed willingness to revert to negotiating the initially
tabled text.

On measures for
benefit sharing, delegates discussed whether to retain reference to “practices
and genetic resources.” NEW ZEALAND, opposed by the G-77/CHINA, said this
reference is beyond the scope of the debate on TFRK. SWITZERLAND, opposed by the
G-77/CHINA, suggested reference to “access” to TFRK.

Delegates debated
whether to refer to “traditional,” rather than “original,” TFRK holders
throughout the text. NEW ZEALAND suggested deleting both qualifiers, given the
difficulty identifying a traditional holder. The text was bracketed. PAKISTAN
proposed a reference to the area where TFRK originates. On the international
community’s respect for national laws, the EU, opposed by the G-77/CHINA,
proposed a text on “taking into account international obligations, as
appropriate.” On the reference to the TFRK that is in the common domain, the US
suggested, and the G-77/CHINA opposed, replacing a reference to TFRK “that is
already in common domain” with the words “with the agreement of the traditional
holders of that knowledge.”

On the CPF
supporting national actions, CANADA asked to delete the paragraph. The
G-77/CHINA asked that it be retained and proposed referring to “traditional”
holders of knowledge and to the “preservation” and protection of TFRK. Regarding
a reference on collaboration with indigenous peoples, in the same paragraph, the
G-77/CHINA asked for input from the indigenous peoples’ major group. INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES said their input was of utmost importance and welcomed “collaboration
with indigenous peoples.” INDIGENOUS WORLD ASSOCIATION reiterated the indigenous
right to self-determination and indigenous title to property and reminded states
that the free prior informed consent of indigenous peoples must be obtained
before accessing their property. He noted the minimal involvement of indigenous
peoples at this stage of the debate and said their input must be taken into
account throughout the negotiations.

After a lenghthy
evening negotiation on TFRK, delegates could not reach concensus on this issue
and thus decided to forego the resolution.

WORKING GROUP II

MONITORING,
ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING AND CRITERIA AND INDICATORS: Vice-Chair Stephanie
Caswell (US) opened the floor for discussions. In the preamble and lessons
learned proposed by the Vice-Chair, the EU suggested referring to MAR and C&I in
separate paragraphs. The preamble was then accepted.

In several
operative paragraphs, the G-77/CHINA proposed minor amendments to reflect
countries’ different stages of development and the addition of references to
strengthening countries’ C&I. Delegates agreed to welcome the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) Operational Programme on Sustainable Land Management and
encourage countries to submit project proposals.

On encouraging
countries to include forests and forest-related MAR in national development
plans and poverty reduction strategy papers (PRSP), the G-77/CHINA rejected “in
order to enhance opportunities for financing” as a conditional clause.
Vice-Chair Caswell suggested, and delegates agreed, on “which could enhance
opportunities for international cooperation.”

Delegates adopted
a paragraph encouraging states to invite stakeholder participation in C&I
development and implementation. Regarding a paragraph endorsing seven thematic
elements of SFM drawn from criteria identified in C&I processes, JAPAN cautioned
that endorsing the thematic elements would create a dilemma for countries who
participate in C&I processes that do not embrace all seven elements. The EU,
with SWITZERLAND, added a reference to cultural aspects as criteria for SFM.
NORWAY, opposed by NEW ZEALAND, AUSTRALIA and the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, proposed
deleting a paragraph encouraging countries to consider the thematic elements in
developing C&I for SFM. AUSTRALIA, supported by the REPUBLIC OF KOREA, opposed
by SWITZERLAND, suggested developing a single set of C&I and proposed text
encouraging C&I processes to work towards convergence over time.

REVIEW PROCESS:
Working Group II continued discussions on a revised Vice-Chair’s draft text
on REIAF. Delegates agreed to invite the CPF and other relevant organizations to
report on implementation of the IPF/IFF proposals for action and on the 21
Specific Criteria, and to voluntarily provide quantifiable benchmarks against
the criteria “within their mandate.” Delegates also discussed a possible
deadline for the Secretariat to prepare, translate and distribute the review
report in advance of UNFF-5. MEXICO stressed the importance of having translated
versions for consideration by Member States at least a month in advance, with
the G-77/CHINA calling for two months. Delegates agreed to request the report
ï¿½well in advance.ï¿½

Delegates decided
to adopt a single preambular paragraph. They then engaged in a prolonged
discussion on a proposed questionnaire, to be submitted to countries by the
Secretariat, that aims to clarify ï¿½by way of a simple rating systemï¿½ the extent
to which the international arrangement on forests has influenced national
actions. The G-77/CHINA opposed specific rating systems. JAPAN concurred and
proposed that the Secretariat compose the questionnaire after receiving basic
guidance from UNFF-4. He suggested limiting the number of questions and
requesting simple information relevant only to the REIAF. Supported by the US
and SWITZERLAND, he proposed asking countries for specific examples of UNFF
contributions to national-level implementation.

The US asked that
the content of the questionnaire be clarified, and suggested convening an
informal group in New York to draft the questionnaire. The G-77/CHINA opposed,
stressing the need for open discussion. He opposed a detailed questionnaire and
suggested making only a general request to Member States for their views. The EU
and SWITZERLAND stressed the need for a questionnaire, noting it would increase
the number of submitted reports and facilitate the REIAF by making reports
comparable. UNFF Secretariat noted that after UNFF-1 had failed to provide
guidance on reporting, subsequent reports were very few, incompatible, and did
not allow for the drawing of conclusions. JAPAN, with the G-77/CHINA, expressed
scepticism about the possibility of reaching agreement on the format of a
questionnaire. CANADA, with SWITZERLAND and MEXICO, underscored that a
questionnaire would be just a voluntary tool to assist countries.

IN THE CORRIDORS

Some have said an
early afternoon harvest on SCAF was a positive step for UNFF-4, while others
were concerned about the slow progress in the REIAF over the use of the
questionnaire. Yet despite this, many are of the view that there remains much
goodwill within UNFF evidenced by the frequent corridor talk concerning future
intersessional country-led initiatives. No doubt this goodwill will be put to
the test at the ad hoc expert group meeting in September.

THINGS TO
LOOK FOR TODAY

PLENARY:
Delegates are scheduled to convene in Plenary in Salle XVIII from 10:00 am ï¿½
1:00 pm and from 3:00 pm ï¿½ 6:00 pm to consider: preparations for the ad hoc
expert group on consideration with a view to recommending the parameters of
a mandate for developing a legal framework on all types of forests; the
2006-2007 strategic framework; dates and venues of UNFF-5; other matters; the
provisional agenda; and adopting the report of UNFF-4.

This issue of
the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin ï¿½
enb@iisd.org is written
and edited by Andrew Baldwin
andrew@iisd.org;
Radoslav Dimitrov, Ph.D.
rado@iisd.org; Marï¿½a
Gutiï¿½rrez
maria@iisd.org; Tamilla
Gaynutdinova
tamilla@iisd.org; and
Nicole Schabus
nicole@iisd.org. The
Digital Editor is Leslie
Paas
leslie@iisd.org. The
Editor is Pamela S. Chasek,
Ph.D.
pam@iisd.org and the
Director of IISD Reporting
Services is Langston James "Kimo"
Goree VI
kimo@iisd.org. The
Sustaining Donors of the
Bulletin are the
Government of the United
States of America (through
the Department of State
Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada
(through CIDA), the Swiss
Agency for Environment,
Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through
the Department for
International Development -
DFID), the Danish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the
Government of Germany
(through the German Federal
Ministry of Environment -
BMU, and the German Federal
Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ), and the
Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. General
Support for the Bulletin
during 2004 is provided by
the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP),
the Government of Australia,
Austrian Federal Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry,
Environment and Water
Management, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of
Sweden, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Norway,
Swan International, the
Japanese Ministry of
Environment (through the
Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies -
IGES) and the Japanese
Ministry of Economy, Trade
and Industry (through the
Global Industrial and Social
Progress Research Institute
- GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin in
French has been provided by
the International
Organization of the
Francophonie (IOF) and the
French Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The opinions
expressed in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin
are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect
the views of IISD or other
donors. Excerpts from the
Earth Negotiations Bulletin
may be used in
non-commercial publications
with appropriate academic
citation. For information on
the Bulletin,
including requests to
provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD
Reporting Services at
kimo@iisd.org,
+1-212-644-0217 or 212 East
47th St. #21F, New York, NY
10017, USA.